News Desk
MALÉ, Maldives — The Supreme Court has dealt a significant blow to state prosecutors, upholding the High Court’s decision to permanently exclude critical evidence from the retrial of former President Abdulla Yameen Abdul Gayoom. The ruling sharply narrows the government’s options as it attempts to secure a second conviction in one of the country’s most closely watched corruption cases.
The case centres on the lease of Aarah island in Vaavu Atoll, a transaction that previously resulted in Yameen’s conviction for bribery and money laundering involving $1 million. That conviction was overturned on appeal, and a retrial was ordered — but prosecutors’ efforts to strengthen their hand in that retrial have now been blocked at the highest level.
A three-justice panel — comprising presiding Justice Aisha Shujune Muhammad, Justice Abdulla Hameed, and Justice Dr Mohamed Ibrahim — ruled unanimously to affirm the High Court’s decision barring the state from introducing fresh rebuttal evidence under Section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Justice Shujune, delivering the verdict, made clear that the ruling was rooted in a fundamental principle: the state, with its vast institutional resources, bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the role of the judiciary, she said, to correct procedural missteps or tactical errors made by prosecutors during litigation. To allow otherwise, she held, would damage the basic principle of equality before the law.
The court also found that the state had failed to raise a key argument before the High Court — specifically, that procedural defects in admitting the evidence could have been remedied under the established Ali Zubair Supreme Court precedent. Because that point had not been raised below, and because the state could not demonstrate it had no earlier opportunity to do so, the Supreme Court declined to entertain it at this stage.
The ruling permanently sidelines two categories of evidence that prosecutors had sought to use to challenge the credibility of defence witnesses.
The first comprises military attendance records belonging to Ahmed Nareesh, a former Maldives National Defence Force officer who currently serves as an adviser to the Youth Minister. Nareesh had testified that he personally delivered local currency cash to former Member of Majlis Yoosuf Naeem as part of a dollar-exchange transaction. The Criminal Court had previously found his testimony unconvincing.
The second category consists of official minutes and logs from meetings of the Economic Youth Council, a high-level ministerial committee that operated during Yameen’s presidency.
The Supreme Court’s ruling lifts a stay order that had halted all proceedings at the Criminal Court while the apex court deliberated. The retrial of the Aarah island case is now free to resume — but prosecutors must proceed without the excluded materials, significantly limiting the avenues available to them.
Yameen’s legal troubles do not end there. He continues to face separate corruption charges related to the lease of Fuggiri island, as well as civil litigation over $1 million held in a state escrow account.
